States’ Social Security & Support for the Wage-Work ...eprints.staffs.ac.uk › 1956 › 1 ›...

States’ Social Security & Support for the Wage-Work Bargain Reconstructing Europe’s Floor of Social Protection

ISLSSL XI European Congress K. Puttick - Speaker’s Notes

ISLSSL XI European Congress of Labour Law & Social Security, Dublin

Theme III Session

Chair Prof Gerry Whyte, Professor of Law, Trinity College, Dublin

Keynote Speaker Dr Keith Puttick, Associate Professor, Staffordshire University, UK*

Discussants Dr Christian Welz, EU Eurofound; Dr Peter Rigney, Irish Congress of Trade Unions

Introduction

May I thank the organisers for an excellent Congress and for my invitation to speak.

In this paper I consider European States’ social security systems and Social Europe, with a focus on

support for the employment relationship and the wage-work bargain. After commenting on the

effects of the post-2007 crisis and recession I consider core features of in-work support, distributive

mechanisms, and the balance between employers’ responsibilities for wages and occupational

benefits deriving from the wage-work bargain and support from the State.

Whilst attention certainly needs to be given to repairing and improving Europe’s social security and

systems and the ‘floor of social protection’ – something requiring radical new approaches at EU and

State levels to the way in-work support is funded and delivered - the welfare of workers and their

families also requires distributive mechanisms like collective bargaining and regulated wage-setting

to function effectively. Such labour market institutions must be viewed as part of the overall ‘floor’.

Strengthening these institutions, as well as repairing the other elements in the floor, will be essential

next steps in rebalancing the responsibilities of employers, individuals, and State schemes and as

part of a renewed, rights-based Social Europe.

Context

Reliable and up-to-date information about European States’ social security systems is provided by

MISSOC, the EU Commission Mutual Information System on Social Protection (MISSOC, 2014). This

also provides Comparative Tables on Social Protection. Together with other EU and national sources

it is possible to get a reliable picture of the state of Europe’s systems.

European countries continue to be responsible for their systems. The systems are diverse,

sometimes with distinctive features. However, most States support workers on low wages, and they

do this in one of two ways, or both. Namely direct support: income transfers, wage supplements or

subsidies, tax credits, and tax reliefs being common ways of providing support. More commonly, it is

provided indirectly – for example through help with the family’s household income, housing, and

other costs. The latter approach assists in meeting living costs, and reduces the costs which would

otherwise have to be met from wages.

*EMail: [email protected]

ISLSSL Congress Programme: http://www.dublinlabourlaw2014.com/congress-programme/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dublinlabourlaw2014.com/congress-programme/



The Crisis

Needless to say, both forms of State support have been busy since 2007 and the onset of the crisis.

Wages have fallen or stagnated. In consequence, the demands on social security schemes, and

especially in-work support, have intensified.

The main requirement for the kinds of social security and assistance programmes we are talking

about is that they should be responsive to changing wages and income needs. As wages,

occupational benefits, and overall household income go down, the State’s input generally needs to

go up, and vice versa. Ideally, it should provide income maintenance that straddles periods when

wages are paid and not being paid – a kind of portable income bridge. In differing degrees, many of

Europe’s schemes try to do this, but with mixed success. This is particularly evident with means-

tested forms of State support helping those on low wages, or on part-time and agency work where

earnings fluctuate and may be insufficient to meet claimants’ requirements. Besides unemployment,

the phenomenon of underemployment has been stalking Europe since before 2007 when

productivity began to fall. By this time, the State’s ‘wage’ had already started to take on new

functions, particularly in low pay sectors.

If wages are sufficient to meet workers’ and their dependants’ needs, and keep pace with rises in

living costs, then the State’s role - whether as regulator of the wage-work bargain (through

mechanisms like minimum wage fixing or maximum hours setting) or as purveyor of social goods –

becomes unnecessary or less necessary. The community and public finances benefit as a result.

However, in the absence of voluntary redistributive mechanisms like collective bargaining, or other

redistributive mechanisms that work efficiently, the State has long retained the ability to intervene

to regulate private transactions like the wage-work bargain. It has done this, most notably, through

mechanisms like a national minimum wage. Schemes of social solidarity built on collective insurance

have operated since time immemorial, with reciprocated and unreciprocated assistance being a

feature of everyday life, even before the advent of the modern State (Sahlins, 2003).

In the modern era, both approaches generally operate in tandem. The State (qua regulator) makes

corrective justice interventions in the wage component of the wage-work bargain in individuals’ and

the community’s interest. Typically it may then complement this (qua purveyor) to add the social

wage to the contractual wage, making use of collective insurance schemes, or the divisible assets of

the State, generally funded from taxation, or loans repaid by the community. Such support has been

rooted in the European tradition since at least Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and notions of

distributive justice and solidarity began (Aristotle, 337 BC: Book V).

Indeed, it is still the distributive justice model, albeit with some updating to meet today’s needs and

systems, which provides the foundations for Social Europe. Let’s look at this more closely.

Post-2007 Crisis and Impacts

Since the crisis started the wages part of the ‘floor’ has been hit very hard. Indeed, according to the

International Labour Organisation (ILO) wages in many sectors are still well below 2007 levels (ILO,

2012/13 and 2014; IFS, 2013; IDS, 2014).



In the face of worsening trading and operating conditions during the crisis, and as an alternative to

making workers redundant, many employers opted to cut pay or impose ‘freezes’ in pay rises. In the

UK this was the response of 42% of organisations surveyed in the UK government’s most recent

Workplace Employment Relations Study (WERS, 2013).

Otherwise, a common response has been to simply modify the way work is organised (24% of

organisations surveyed) - often with implications for remuneration, work time, and other conditions.

The up-to-date position is variable, but downward pressures on wages continue. Annual wage

growth between 2014 and 2017 is expected to be below pre-2008 levels for most low to middle

income earners (Ernst & Young, 2014). At the same time, living costs rise. Pay increases have been

limited, although purchasing power in some countries rose as a result of lower inflation

(Aumayr-Pintar/Eurofound, 2014).

In many sectors, the European floor continues to be affected by weakened labour market

institutions: collective bargaining, minimum wage regulation, and other redistributive mechanisms.

One of my discussants, Christian Welz of the EU’s Eurofound Foundation, will say more about this

and current European trends, but I will just make this comment. While Eurofound research this year

has shown that collective bargaining remains a major determinant of wages in most European

countries, some of the changes we are seeing, for example decentralisation of bargaining

arrangements, clearly have the propensity to impact negatively on wages and conditions levels. For

example, we have been hearing reports today about the changes to collective bargaining systems in

Romania, and likely impacts. Weakened distributive mechanisms have, of course, been accompanied

by austerity measures and cutbacks to States’ ability to maintain in-work and other social security

programmes. Indeed, the perceived need to downsize social welfare programmes, even when this

weakens the social wage of employed citizens, seems to be a continuing policy driver in much of

Europe - notwithstanding the beginnings of a recovery. We are seeing this in France where there is

pressure to reform the perceived ‘rigidities’ of the labour market. At the same time the French

government has also been addressing what some commentators have seen as an ‘improperly

dimensioned’ social security system, ‘sometimes too generous, sometimes inadequate’ (Pagnerre,

2014).

Despite promising signs of a fragile recovery, much of the continent struggles to deliver meaningful

improvements in living and working conditions. This is evident from Eurofound’s analysis in the

Living and Working in Europe Yearbook, No. 5, July 2014. The impact of such trends on workers’ and

household incomes has affected spending power in a lot of European countries, impacting on

aggregate demand and consumer spending (and contributing to the downward spiral). However, it

has hit countries like Spain and Greece particularly hard as a result of the Troika’s work and debt

relief arrangements (Banyuls & Reccio, 2012; Baylos and Trillo, 2013; Koukiadaki and Kretsos, 2012).

The financial crisis has undoubtedly been a catalyst for significant changes in Europe’s labour law

regimes, especially in those countries most affected by debt restructuring (Barnard, 2012).

System Changes

As a result of changing work patterns, and the rise of unemployment, part-time and short-term

work, coupled with ‘self-employment’, it will be clear to the Congress that we have been seeing

some significant changes and adaptations to Europe’s social security systems, and the roles

European schemes play in supporting the labour market.



National Variations

Each country’s approach varies, but systems like France’s evolving Revenu de Solidarite Active (RSA)

(Vlandas, 2013; Denis and L’Horty, 2012), and earlier schemes like the Prime pour l'Emploi (Beland

and Hansen, 2000; Mikol et al, 2008); Austria’s Bedarfsorientierte Mindestsicherung (Steiner and

Wakolbinger, 2010); and the UK’s Universal Credit (Puttick, 2102a; 2012b) offer interesting examples

of how adaptations have been made. These have generally been aimed at facilitating entry to, and

retention in, newer forms of employment, including short-term and often more flexible kinds of

work transaction.

France’s RSA, or earned income supplement, was introduced twenty years after the start of the

Revenu Minimum d'Insertion (minimum integration income) and within two years of the onset of

the crisis. It was introduced to ‘combat poverty among people in work’. As Clément Bourgeois and

Chloé Tavan have explained, it plays a twofold role. First, ensuring a minimum income for people out

of work (the ‘base’ RSA) and, second, providing an income supplement for low-paid members of

households in work (the ‘cap’ RSA). As income rises, benefit declines (Bourgeois & Tavan, 2009). The

RSA’s focus on means rather than employment status has been another feature. In practice, this can

be helpful for workers on the periphery of the labour market who move in and out of short-term

work, but who depend on continuing State support.

The change process, as it has been affecting Europe’s schemes, has been controversial at times –

particularly if support is accompanied by coercive measures, usually in the name of ‘promoting

active inclusion’ – but especially so when the unemployed and ‘underemployed’ are expected to

enter low paid employment that lacks the other attributes of Decent Work: a ‘fair income’, ‘security’,

social protection for family and dependants, reasonable prospects of personal development and

integration, participation in decisions affecting their working life, and so forth (ILO, 2008).

A new generation of flexible working contracts, including a proliferation of unregulated, transactions

like zero hours and on call contracts (often entailing misuse of ‘self-employment’ status) is also

evident - often characterised by a transfer of costs and risks away from the employer and onto the

community at large.

In general, whilst Europe’s social protection schemes have helped many families keep the wolf from

the door they have not always worked as well as they should during the crisis.

In this respect, some countries’ systems seem to have coped much better than others, according to

analysis by Verena Maria Mai.

This is evident, she says, when examining the challenges that countries like Spain have had to face,

which have certainly not been helped by austerity measures which have also been a factor in

growing inequalities (Banyuls and Reccion, 2012).

In comparison to Spain’s experience, countries like Sweden and Austria appear to have been able to

maintain higher levels of social protection throughout much of the crisis. The need for a high level of

investment, and continued investment that is responsive to changes in demand, were generally

understood as requirements when the schemes were designed; and this, in turn, meant less demand

on public finances being made when the crisis started to bite (Mai, 2013: 36).



Are Schemes of Social Solidarity Sustainable?

State support is not cheap. This is especially so in times of scarcity when the demands on the State’s

support intensify. For that reason, if no other, it becomes doubly important that redistributive

mechanisms and labour market institutions should operate fairly and efficiently. In this context

‘fairly’ begs the question whether the interests of the hard-pressed taxpayers paying for schemes

out of taxation, and the repayment of borrowing when schemes are funded in that way, are being

sufficiently taken into account. They are, of course, major investors and stakeholders.

As we heard from Ireland’s Labour Minister, Mr Bruton, at the Congress yesterday, funding from

taxation and borrowing has been extremely difficult to sustain since 2007.

This is particularly the case in periods when revenue from taxes is falling, and the costs of borrowing

to fund the State’s activities, including social programmes, have gone up exponentially.

Participants at this Congress from the States may want to comment on this - but looking across the

Atlantic to what has been happening in the USA, the US labour market since 2009 has been

massively supported by a raft of in-work tax credits, child tax credits, and other forms of support

since 2009. The first tranche of support came when Congress approved President Obamah’s

‘stimulus package’ of nearly $800 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The 2009 Act and subsequent measures have been aimed at boosting spending and countering on-

going deflationary trends - much of it directed as the Act says as ‘aid for low income workers’.

However, as a form of social protection, such stimuli and subsidies – because that’s what I am sure

they are – are not particularly efficient in helping either side of the bargain. In the longer term, wage

subsidies tend to create new dependencies, with low-paying employers becoming among the biggest

stakeholders alongside the workers they assist. As long ago as 1848 political economists like J.S. Mill

warned about the potentially ‘pauperising’ effects of transferring the burden, or part of the burden,

of wages away from employers and on to the community (Mill, 1848: Book II, Distribution, Ch XII ‘Of

Popular Remedies for Low Wages’; and Puttick, 2012b: 236).

Besides the scope for fraud that exists with most systems that depend on means-testing,

governments and the community at large cannot be sure that employers are paying wages at a level

they can afford. If employers are in effect receiving an unnecessary State subsidy, it will be difficult

to justify this to hard-pressed taxpayers. Furthermore, there is likely to be a long-term political cost

to pay as we have seen in recent anti-welfare sentiments in recent European elections.

In contrast to the USA, most European States have either had to cut back such support, or have

chosen to cut it back. Arguably an unwise approach in the face of what is a deflationary crisis, and

when State there is a case for maintaining spending.

Ireland, for example, was not only forced to modify regulatory wage interventions - notably by

cutting its minimum wage (albeit as a temporary measure) - it has also had to cut back on support

programmes. On a more positive note, I note from the Irish newspapers this week that recent

agreement with other EU finance ministers on refinancing of loans has meant Ireland paying less

interest on its debts. This, in turn, we’re told, may ease the pressure on social programmes like

Ireland’s family benefits and in-work schemes like Family Income Supplement – an important source

of supplementary in-work support for low paid workers. That’s fine, and positive news ahead of

Ireland’s forthcoming Budget - but I think it is pretty evident that such schemes remain highly

vulnerable - financially and politically.



Funding Social Security: Are New Approaches Needed?

Are new approaches needed? It has been suggested, for example, that a radical overhaul is needed,

with a more centrally funded and ‘managed’ Europe-wide scheme (Piketty, Rosanvallon, et al (2014).

At other end of the spectrum of opinion on funding it has been suggested that we may have started

to reach the limits on what State support is affordable, and there is possibly a need for much less

State involvement, and a return to an emphasis on ‘the philosophy of individual responsibility’ , and

certainly ‘alternative mechanisms of social support’. These are among the interesting points due to

be debated at the Capetown World Congress next year as part of ‘Theme 3’ (From Social Exclusion to

Social Security). Speakers will include Professor Kamala Sankaran of the University of Delhi.

Interestingly, the pre-Congress abstract observes that ‘In the poorest countries … State revenue may

be too limited to provide more than the most basic social security’, and so the emphasis is on

informal and alternative mechanisms of social support. It is asked: ‘What is the scope for further

development of such mechanisms’?

It continues: ‘Could the lessons of these systems be relevant also for more developed countries

where the “welfare state” may have reached its limits?

Participants will have their own thoughts on this.

I look forward to contributing to the debates in Capetown. However, at this stage, and admittedly

before hearing all the arguments, I have to say I find it difficult to buy into the idea that European

countries’ Welfare States have somehow ‘reached the limits’. If Social Europe is to mean anything

then it can, and must, be able to maintain an effective residual, minimum floor of social protection –

particularly for groups like the ‘unorganised worker’ and other groups outside the scope and reach

of collective bargaining.

As I argue later in this paper, this will mean strengthening labour market institutions, especially

collective bargaining. In sectors where this is difficult or impossible, it may mean resurrecting new

forms of regulated bargaining and forums for dialogue on pay and conditions. Perhaps the UK’s

wages council system, or its close cousin Ireland’s Joint Industrial Committee (JIC) scheme, can offer

a model for regulated sectoral negotiation in order to help construct and maintain an acceptable

wages and conditions floor. This is likely to be necessary for groups which find it difficult to organise

collectively – for example because of the small scale of the enterprises involved, and the small

number of workers in those enterprises. Given that such regulated sectoral bargaining is likely to

lack the characteristics of mainstream collective bargaining, in particular a discernible, organised

constituency of workers who can be consulted on proposed changes, this is very much ‘second best’

(at least until the conditions needed for mainstream bargaining can be met).

Without the maintenance of effective, well-funded social security and assistance programmes,

coupled with regulatory interventions and new approaches to sectoral wages and conditions setting,

it is difficult to see how a new, stronger floor of protection could function. This may also put some of

Social Europe’s core aims and values, and integrative provisions of the Charter like art 23 (equality

between women and men), art 25 (the rights of the elderly, including the right to ‘lead a life of

dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life’, art 26 (integration of persons

with disabilities); or the Solidarity provisions in Title IV (Charter, 2010).



In the bigger picture, social security programmes are, of course, part of a wider set of

macroeconomic management mechanisms and tools. They are not primarily concerned with

philanthropy, the promotion of T.H. Marshall-type social citizenship ideals (Marshall, 1950), or,

indeed, other ‘citizenship’ discourses. Income transfers from State social security, tax reliefs, and

other forms of assistance – whether reciprocated by the beneficiary or not - serve a range of

important functions in the management of the modern economy.

By sustaining spending power, whether as supplementary or replacement income, or helping to

promote employment, including nascent new forms of self-employment schemes like the UK’s New

Enterprise Allowance - a hybrid in-work benefit/small business subsidy – many of today’s social

security and social assistance schemes play a key role in sustaining consumption and aggregate

demand.

This approach to maintaining the labour market has been well understood by the architects of the

US recovery since the start of the crisis.

At a time when Europe was going in exactly the opposite direction, and cutting back social welfare

programmes, the US’s Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman was arguing for more public

expenditure on such programmes. Furthermore, he argued that the 2009 package was ‘too small’

(‘Too Little Stimulus in Stimulus Plan’, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, February 19 2009). He

pointed out that the crisis is essentially one of deflation (more precisely debt deflation), aggravated

by the ‘engines of growth going silent’, including housing, exports, business investment, and

consumer spending.

A huge spending gap had been created, he noted. With monetary policy a ‘non-starter’, that left

nothing but ‘government spending’ to prime the pump.

Europe’s Well-Developed ‘Floor of Social Protection’

In the face of stark statistics that upwards of between a fifth and a quarter of EU citizens, including a

sizeable and growing proportion of the employed population, are ‘at risk of poverty and social

exclusion’ (Eurostat/EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC); IFS, 2013), Europe’s leaders

need to come up with some effective responses.

Let’s look more closely behind the figures.

The EU’s definition of poverty and social exclusion relies on a combination of three ‘indicators’ – the

at-risk-of-poverty rate, severe material deprivation rate, and the proportion of people living in very

low work intensity households. This approach extends the customary concept of relative income

poverty to include non-monetary dimensions such as labour market exclusion, per se, and this needs

to be taken into account. Nevertheless, the net result is that on the Eurostat figures, by 2011 an

estimated 119.5 million people living in the EU (24.1 % of the EU population) were at risk of poverty

or social exclusion in 2011.

There is a significant time lag, before figures become available. So we will have to see whether, and

to what extent, the position has been improving more recently – but the scale of the challenge at

the height of the crisis was pretty obvious, particularly in respect of households with members in

low-paid employment.



The Bachelet Report/ILO 2011

Michelle Bachelet’s Report for the ILO in 2011 (Bachelet, 2011), and linked ILO’s recommendations

(ILO, 2012), have made valuable recommendations about the need for countries to develop and

maintain a floor of social protection in the face of such trends. Whilst much of the report was

directed at countries where social security and assistance schemes are new, or where such floors are

still being developed, I believe the report had (and still has) some important things to say about

countries with more ‘developed’ systems, including those in Europe. Among other things, the

effectiveness of a country’s social protection floor will continue to link strongly to implementation of

the Decent Work Agenda.

Furthermore, to succeed in combating poverty, deprivation and inequality, programmes ‘cannot

operate in isolation’; and poverty reduction strategies must be accompanied by other measures, ie

strengthening labour/social institutions and promoting ‘pro-employment macroeconomic

environments’ (Bachelet, p.xxiv). Those who were present at the XX World Congress in Santiago,

Chile in 2012 will recall how we debated long and hard about the importance of Decent Work

standards and ILO guidance (ILO, 2008) in shaping a base-line for work environments, welfare-at-

work, and as a necessary pre-condition for effective programmes.

It is certainly the case that in countries where more comprehensive systems already exist, the social

floor serves to fill ‘coverage gaps’, enhance coherence among social policies, and improve

coordination among institutions (Recommendations, p.91). In the European context this was evident

even before 2007 when both productivity and wages were falling in key sectors. However, by the

time the report was published in 2011, many of the assumptions underlying the analysis were

starting to be overtaken by the crisis, and a deteriorating position.

Undoubtedly what in 2011 merely looked like gaps are now in 2014 starting to look more like

sizeable holes. In the UK, for example, the reports of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty

Commission in 2013 and 2014 have highlighted this concern. They have also shown how much of the

rise in relative poverty has been affecting households with at least one adult in paid employment

(Social Mobility & Child Poverty Commission, 2013)

Is a Job Still a ‘Route out of Poverty’?

Post-2007 rises in in-work poverty, and increasing dependence by workers and employers on State

support, raises big question marks around policy-makers’ assumptions that a job is necessarily the

‘best route out of poverty’, even when supplemented by tax credits and other forms of State

support. This was a long-term, central tenet of UK welfare policy under New Labour in New

Ambitions for Our Country: A New Contract for Welfare (DSS, 1998; Puttick, 1998). It continued to be

so in the Coalition government’s blue-print for welfare reform, 21st Century Welfare (DWP, 2010;

Puttick, 2012a, 2012b), and since then.

Plainly, much needs to be done to make a reality of this - not just in the UK but in other European

countries which are committed to the targets set by EU leaders in the Europe 2020 pact

(COM(2010)758 Final). What does this mean, in specific terms - particularly at the labour

market/social security inter-face? It dictates a need for some re-thinking, as well as repairs to that

part of the floor which depends on mainstream labour market institutions functioning efficiently.



In particular, as the recovery accelerates, the focus should be on strengthening collective bargaining,

and improving other distributive and regulatory mechanisms - nationally, sectorally, and at the

enterprise levels. This is essential if we are to see the wages floor raised. Effective action, including

legal interventions, will also be needed to ensure that coverage is maintained.

As Eurofound research and corporate surveys in 2010 concluded, workplace social dialogue will

continue to be an important contributing factor helping to bring European companies out of the

crisis. Strengthened collective bargaining, besides offering a better chance of improving the basic

wages and occupational benefits floor, will serve to reduce an increasing dependency on in-work

support and State welfare ‘nets’ (ETUC, 2012a; 2013).

In the UK, collectivism and the idea of ‘joint regulation’ continues to decline, despite continuity in

the public sector and in some sections of the private sector (Beszter, Ackers, Hislop, 2014). Our

Institute of Employment Rights produced a timely, well-received Manifesto for Collective Bargaining

putting forward a ten point plan for addressing this (IER, 2013).

Among other things, it argues there should be incentives for employers to engage in collective

bargaining, including a bar on companies’ access to public sector contracts if they refuse to

negotiate with their employees; support for sectoral bargaining; and changes to union recognition

law to ensure workers have representation at work from their union, and providing for recognition if

ten per cent workers are members.

The Food Sector: A Case Study in Failure?

A recent study provided in a TV documentary ‘Supermarkets: The Real Price of Cheap Food’: Winners

and Losers in the Supermarket Supply Chain’, August 2014 (UK Channel 4, 2014) identified some key

issues. In particular, it highlighted the problems workers face when collective representation and

bargaining coverage is weak, and there is minimal dialogue between the parties to the wage-work

bargain (or the social partners at sectoral level).

The astonishing thing, even for the most dispassionate observers, if that this can be happening in a

supply chain at the end of which are some of the most profitable corporations on the planet! We see

workers in the supply chain being paid wages close to, and at some points along the chain below the

national minimum wage.

Too often, they may also be working conditions that fly in the face of Decent Work standards.

Even at the retail end of that production cycle – the supermarkets – workers’ wages are hardly over-

generous, despite in many cases affiliation to strong unions like the UK’s Union of Shop Distributive

and Allied Workers (USDAW).

Unfortunately this says much about the difficulties such unions currently face - even when assisted

through the medium of collective bargaining. Within the retail sector, as in others, there are

employers trying to maintain reasonable wages and conditions. The problem seems to be that retail

sector as a whole seems to be in the grip of cut-throat competition in order to offer cheap food.

That may be attractive for consumers, but it comes at quite a price for workers at earlier stages in

the production cycle.



Caught between Two Hard Places: Low(er) Wages, and Less State Support

Regrettably, the story does not stop there. Low-paid workers in the sector are increasingly caught

between two hard places, namely low(er) wages, while at the same time receiving reduced State

Support from in-work Social Security schemes as a result of cutbacks to budgets.

Governments have also not been averse to simply moving the goal-posts, typically by introducing

tougher eligibility criteria before workers can qualify for State support.

It may come as a surprise that workers employed by some of world’s most successful and profitable

corporations should have to depend on such State in-work benefits, tax credits, and support with

housing costs. But that is increasingly the case. Specifically, in 2012 the UK government raised the

minimum weekly hours required before claimants could qualify for Working Tax Credit – the UK’s

most important in-work cash transfer. Coupled with the impact of freezes on yearly increases in the

value of support, this had an immediate impact on 212,000 working households, including those of

many of the lowest paid workers in the retail sector (some of them earning barely 10% above

national minimum wage). In particular, many claimants who were part of a couple were suddenly

expected to meet a new minimum weekly working hours threshold before they could continue to

get WTC support after April 2012, thereby in many cases losing upwards of £3870 a year according

to the report ‘Local Figures for Children and Families Losing Working Tax Credit in April’, Child

Poverty Action Group (CPAG), 16 February 2012. A credible and authoritative source based, in part,

on House of Commons research data. Many of those workers were in USDAW, a union which

negotiates wages and conditions for a large proportion of the sector.

The problem is, as in so many low paying sectors, employers clearly organised pay rates on the

assumption that such State support will continue.

Like the workers and unions, they were as surprised to be told that such support was no longer

‘sustainable’. So, the problem has become one for employers as much as workers – particularly in

sectors that rely on part-time and casual workers who tend to be on the margins of mainstream

employment conditions, and who tend to be more reliant on the State for income and support.

What is needed?

Undoubtedly, it makes sense to look to the labour market for solutions in the first instance, and only

after that to social protection systems as a secondary, residual welfare safety-net. A pro-active,

rights-based Social Europe clearly needs functioning and effective redistributive mechanisms rather

than just an expanded, increasingly expensive social welfare system.

In some countries it is evident that such an expanding role for in-work programmes is becoming the

norm – indeed it is an increasingly integral part of many of Europe’s workers’ wage/social wage.

The EU has at different times signaled the need to ‘improve the quality of fiscal consolidation’ and

the ‘resilience of social protection systems’ across the EU. Interestingly, it has also observed that

‘the emphasis needs to shift from short-term measures to structural reforms’, for example by a

range of measures to ‘improve the social situation’. However, their entreaties are generally focused

on approaches aimed at supporting enterprise, and making social protection work – eg through

promoting active inclusion, improving competition and job creation, and removing ‘fiscal pressures

on enterprise’ (Social Europe, 2013: 8-11).



Not much has been said at EU level about the way that redistributive mechanisms are working, or

are being supported.

This is, I believe, rather surprising – especially as EU surveys have consistently pointed out that the

‘working poor’ make up a sizeable proportion of those identified as ‘at risk of poverty’ on Eurostat

statistics. As has been rightly noted, ‘Having a job is not always a guarantee against the risk of

poverty as the working poor represent one third of working age adults at-risk-of-poverty.

In 2011, 8.9% of the people in employment were living under the poverty threshold in the EU and

the situation worsened in the period 2010-2011 in 12 Member States. In-work poverty is linked to

three broad factors: the individual’s employment characteristics (low pay, lack of skills, temporary

jobs, precarious employment, few working hours); household characteristics (size and composition

of the household); and work intensity (defined as the ratio of the sum of all months worked by

adults aged 18-59 in the past year to the total number of months that could have been worked)…’

(Social Europe, 2013: 48). This is my take, and I do not necessarily expect everyone at this Congress

necessarily to share it – but is seems to me that the EU is strong on analysis, much of it helpful.

However, in terms of responses, and actions, the position is far less clear or coherent. In a number of

sectors - I do not confine my remarks to the food sector – the analysis dictates a more holistic

approach is needed to combating low pay, poor working conditions, including consideration of the

effectiveness of labour market institutions, and their operation, and a re-balancing of employers’ as

well as States’ responsibilities in this key area of social protection.

Distributive Mechanisms & Interactions

Within the typologies of ‘welfare’ provided by leading lights like Gøsta Esping-Andersen, Christopher

Pissarides (2014), and Nicholas Barr (2012) it can be seen that two key mechanisms operate at the

interface of the ‘private’ employment transaction and State welfare support for that transaction,

and the wage-work bargain at that transaction’s heart. First, income from wages and occupational

benefits: the basic element in the ‘floor’. Second, State support, including in-work benefits, income

transfers, wage subsidies, and assistance in the form of tax reliefs and reductions of the kind

favoured by the USA. As Barr explains, the income from wages is still the primary source of welfare

for many, with State support in its various forms adding another source within the overall ‘mosaic’.

The Importance of Regulation

In this context it is not difficult to see the on-going importance of effectively regulating wages,

hours, and the other core components of the wage-work bargain. Indeed this remains ‘key’ in the

context of the crisis (ILO/Bonnet, Saget, 2012), and in the operation of labour markets. Whilst

collective bargaining remains a major determinant of wages in Europe, legal interventions in the

form of minimum wage-setting also play a key role, in countries like the USA (Kronman, 1980) as well

as Europe – indeed they may be seen as a ‘cornerstone’ of the European Social Model. Reference

may also be made to the important role of regulation in reports such as Bonnet, Saget, Weber (2012)

Social Protection and Minimum Wages Responses to the 2008 Financial and Economic Crisis: Findings

from the ILO/World Bank Inventory, Geneva: ILO, 2012. Yet it is by no means clear that minimum

wage-setting systems - whether at national or sectoral level – operate as efficiently as they should.

This is particularly evident at the wage/social security interface.



Regulating Wages & the WWB: Specific Issues & Limitations

Minimum wage-setting schemes have weaknesses. These not only undermine the effectiveness of

the schemes themselves, but also the effectiveness of social security and assistance programmes, as

redistributive tools.

Typically, minimum wage floors have tended to be over-cautious and set minimum wage rates at too

low a level - largely in the face of concerns about the potential negative impact on labour costs, new

job creation, impact on differentials in pay structures, and so forth. As a result, the cost to the

community of State support (income transfers, etc) may be much higher than it needs to be.

Furthermore, as we have been seeing in Europe, other ‘welfare’ costs, such as State support for low-

paid workers’ rent, rise. This is certainly evident in the UK. Since the onset of the crisis, and in the

absence of effective regulation of the private market in rented accommodation increasingly large

numbers of low-paid workers have had to look to the State and schemes in the UK like Housing

Benefit for help with their rent. Rather than trying to address the problem at source, governmental

responses have focused on limiting what claimants can expect to get. As reported by commentators

like Liam Kelly in ‘UK Housing Benefit Bill will Soar to £25bn by 2017’ this is readily apparent from

measures like the introduction of benefits ‘caps’, a ‘bedroom tax’ limiting claimants to the number

of rooms for which they can claim support, and ‘discretionary payment’ schemes (Kelly, 2013).

Doubts about the effectiveness of current national minimum wage arrangements have prompted

leading research organisations like the Resolution Foundation to look at other, better solutions. At

the same time, groups like the UK’s Trade Union Congress have started to put forward calls for the

resurrection of sector-based bodies, including statutorily-regulated systems like the wages councils

(in the UK) and Joint Industrial Committees (JICs) in Ireland. Basically, these are bodies operating at

industry level, with representation by both social partners (employers and unions), which provide a

forum for negotiation of claims from the union side, and which then have legal power to set

minimum wages and conditions for that particular sector.

Interestingly, there have been on-going concerns about the way the Irish JICs operate – not just from

employers’ organisations, but also from the courts in high-profile cases like John Grace in 2011, and

McGowan in 2013 (Grace, 2011; McGowan, 2013).

Despite these setbacks, the system appears set to continue, albeit with limitations and restrictions

(Kerr, 2013; Doherty, 2013).

Unusually, the courts in the UK have gone the other way in giving a new lease of life to regulated

sectoral bargaining, and wages and conditions setting.

However, in 2014 the UK’s Supreme Court this gave its blessing to Wales’ constitutional ability to do

this, and to establish its own agricultural wages board, mirroring many of the features of the

previous board which it will replace, and the earlier wages council system (Agricultural Sector Bill,

UKSC 2014).

This development came after attempts by the London government to extend the abolition of

sectoral wages and conditions setting in England (as part of deregulation measures in Part 5 of the

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (‘Reduction of Legislative Burdens’) to Wales - over the

heads of unions, employers, and the Welsh government. This failed as a result of the Supreme

Court’s intervention in the case, stopping the abolition of the board to Wales, and enabling Wales to

set up its own scheme (Agricultural Sector Bill, UKSC, 2014).



So, despite the Coalition government’s attempts to bring to an end this particular model for

regulated sectoral bargaining and statutory wages and conditions setting, we now have three of the

four countries of the UK, and our neighbour Ireland, opting to maintain the system.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s judgment, the Welsh government and Welsh Assembly,

supported by both sides of the sector – employers and workers – has been constructing its own

version of the Board – a process driven, primarily, by concerns that abolition of the system would

inevitably be followed by falls in agricultural wages and consequential impacts on the Welsh rural

economy. Even the government’s original assessment suggested this was likely (DEFRA, 2012). In

particular, it would take much-needed spending power out of it, and increase this in turn would

increase demands on social security systems.

Northern Ireland and Scotland both cited similar reasons for retaining their systems. However,

influential employer lobbies, including National Farmers Union Scotland, have had on-going

concerns. NFU Scotland has cited the way English competitors over the border benefit from lower

operating costs as wages fall following the abolition of the Agricultural wages Board for England and

Wales. After the last settlement in 2013, when the Scottish board fixed new wages and conditions

for another year, NFU Scotland welcomed the settlement. However, it added that in ‘those parts of

our industry that are reliant on seasonal workers could face serious competition issues for staff in

the years ahead…For our soft fruit and vegetable growers, having a statutory requirement to pay

higher wages while growers south of the border need only pay the national minimum wage will put

our farms at a competitive disadvantage’ (NFU Scotland ‘Agricultural Wage Proposals Reflect

Difficult Year’, 23 May 2013).

Despite the isolation of England and the Coalition government on this issue, there are influential

voices calling for a reversal of current deregulation policies. No doubt influenced by the stance of

the devolved governments in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and having a good

understanding of the limitations of NMW systems (as a former member of the UK’s Low Pay

Commission, the leader of the UK’s Trade Union Congress, Frances O’Grady, has called on the Labour

Party and a future Labour government after the General Election in May 2015 to restore wages

councils as part of a wider strategy for tackling low pay, and to ‘boost wages for low to medium

earners’ (TUC, 2013a). She said at the conference Strong Unions: Turning the Tide in March 2013

that there should be new policies to reduce growing wage inequalities, including ‘a return to wages

councils that could set legally enforced minimum wages in different sectors, not just the agricultural

sector’. They would ‘involve union, employer and expert members, and could go significantly higher

than the national minimum wage in particular sectors’.

This was repeated on 23rd August 2013 when she said that 'If we are to build a strong and

sustainable recovery which benefits all working people, our vision must reach far beyond the

minimum wage, which after all is just a floor on pay. Ministers should encourage all employers who

can afford to pay a living wage to do so, and consider the introduction of new wages councils to

press for decent pay rates across the economy.' (TUC, 2013b)

Clearly, it is not enough for developed economies like the UK’s and Ireland’s to rely solely on

national minimum wage-setting as protection against low pay. There is an obvious need to maintain

and, indeed, expand the coverage of sectoral wages and conditions setting systems like the AWB and

Irelands JICs. After all, who understands the needs of businesses and workers, and payability issues,

better than the social partners in those sectors?



Why are Better Regulated Floors Needed? Will Germany follow the UK..?

In the face of weakened collective bargaining across the continent of Europe, falling union

membership, deregulatory agendas, regulation in the form of sectoral and national minimum wage-

setting may, in time, become the last tool in the modern State’s tool-box for regulating wages and

conditions.

Many of us with interests in this area of Labour Law have been observing with great interest

Germany’s plans for a minimum wage, including the likely benefits it will bring many in Germany’s

workforce. However, let’s also consider some specific characteristics and longer-term prospects

before looking at developments in Germany.

When the Floor becomes the Ceiling…

National minimum wage floors undoubtedly have a propensity to become a ‘ceiling’ (Resolution

Foundation 2013a; 2013b). In effect, employers in sectors with a ready labour supply, untroubled by

the need to compete for labour by offering higher wages, tend to treat NMW systems as the ‘going

rate’ rather than as the minimum rate. Making this point, one of the architects of the UK’s national

minimum wage scheme, and a former Chair of the Low Pay Commission, Sir George Bain observed

that this section of the labour market was liable to become divided between a ‘lower’ or ‘second’

tier, with the second tier being substantially more at risk of low pay and poor conditions (Bain,

2013). This is borne out by the Resolution Foundation’s Report Fifteen Years Later, reporting on

progress and trends since the scheme’s introduction. It found that one in ten jobs (2.4 million) now

paid within 50 pence of the minimum wage (£6.19 an hour at the full adult rate). That 10% figure

rose to 12% among women, 22% among part-time workers, 18% in the retail sector, and 42% in

hospitality (and this excluded any unofficial underpayment, which remains a problem in a system

that is not well policed). It was also noted that in the early days of the minimum wage it was

anticipated it would raise pay across the low-wage economy.

However, in practice the NMW has mostly helped those at the very bottom. In some sectors,

employers take on millions of very low paid workers with little chance of progression. On this, Bain

commented ‘We created the minimum wage to stop extreme exploitation, yet some employers now

see it as the going rate for entry-level staff’. ‘That's not what it was supposed to do’, he said. ‘With a

single rate, it will always be hard to raise the rate because you're worried about employment in

vulnerable areas. But minimum wages are ill-fitting garments, pinching hard in some places and

leaving room in others. We need to ask whether there's more we could do to push up pay in sectors

that could afford it."

The Foundation has in its reports noted how other countries have seen the problems with national

wage-setting, and have therefore focused more on sectoral arrangements, and on the prevailing

conditions and ‘payability’ sector-by-sector. In the UK variations in the rate relate just to age; and

the rate is set annually by reference to what it is judged the labour market as a whole can afford.

For more vulnerable groups, such as newly arrived migrant workers, particularly when they are

working in segmented labour markets and sectors, there is also a risk of becoming a kind of generally

disadvantaged ‘second team players’ as the Swedish government described this group when

deciding on specific measures to protect workers (and the labour market itself) when workers and

jobseekers from the newer East European States and other A10 States were being admitted in 2004.



Measures set out in the Holmberg-Karlsson Communication to Sweden’s Riksdag included, among

other things, anti-discrimination guarantees, checks on tax and social security contributions, and

ratification of ILO Convention 94 to prevent ‘social dumping’.

The aim was to avoid the development of a kind of ‘guest worker’ system, as well to protect existing

workers from ‘displacement’ – ie replacement of workers on higher wages and better conditions by

workers from the A10 countries prepared to accept lower wages and worse conditions.

A further concern was that such a ‘second team’ could increasingly become a burden on Sweden’s

welfare system.

The low pay, and less favourable conditions of the second team, would inevitably result in a transfer

of costs to the state welfare system as the wage floor was lowered. It was noted, for example, that

Swedish state benefits for the family would, in themselves, exceed a normal wage income in most of

the new Member States. ‘A family with two children that has a third child while the father is working

in Sweden may receive social benefits far in excess of the income they could earn in their country of

origin.’ Not all the proposals were adopted. Nevertheless, as I observed in my commentary in

Welcoming the New Arrivals? Sweden’s measures compared favourably with those of UK and Ireland

‘particularly in seeking to ensure that entry-level employment would be in line with prevailing labour

market conditions’ (Puttick, 2006: 245-250).

An interesting feature of Sweden’s approach in 2004 to regulating the wages and conditions floor

was that it looked to both social partners – unions and employers - to help with the task of

maintaining labour market conditions. In the post-crisis period, and as (we hope) the recovery gains

pace, that task is likely to be much harder - particularly if collective bargaining, and the union

representation that underpins it, is weakening. In sectors where collective bargaining and union

representation does not exist, or is weak, the risk is that in time workers and employers will

increasingly become dependent on State support.

This propensity for State support to become an integral part of the ‘wage’, with a number of

consequences – some of them unwelcome - is worth considering a little further.

The Fiscal Cost of Low Pay

As the Resolution Foundation report Fifteen Years Later (referred to earlier) has said ‘In common

with other advanced economies, the UK has introduced a large and permanent system of in-work

cash transfers, largely in the form of Tax Credits, to top up the unsustainably low wages of low

income working households’. The effect of this has been to raise the fiscal cost of low pay.

This is another way of saying the community is subsidising low-paying employers, and probably

doing so unnecessarily in many instances.

The most effective counter to this, and the rising cost of in-work welfare, is, of course, to either

ensure that collective bargaining systems operate (where the conditions support this), or that

alternative voluntary or regulated arrangements operate. Whatever approach is taken, it is essential

that sustainable wage-setting operates effectively in order to set and maintain a secure wage floor

which then limits the necessity for State support.



As Fifteen Years Later goes on to note (at p.9), ‘More generally, in-work welfare has made the NMW

an integral part of the social security system because it limits the extent to which employers can use

Tax Credits as a wage subsidy that allows them to pay even less.’ [emphasis added]

Turning to the German experience, and what that may tell us. There is certainly a low pay problem in

Germany, as there is in the UK. Indeed, the scale of low pay is big: up from 15% in 1990s to over 22%

(Steen, 2013). According to some commentators the NMW, when it comes, will give a sizeable ‘pay

rise’ to an estimated 17% of Germany’s low-paid (Meyer, 2014).

That may be so. Furthermore, in the short-term, as in the UK after 1999, the immediate problem of

extreme low pay will have been addressed – particularly for those sections of the labour market

beyond the reach of collective bargaining.

The danger, however, is that in time in Germany (as with the UK experience) the system could

atrophy, bringing with it complex labour/social security inter-actions, and new ‘dependencies’.

Above all, as we have seen in the UK, a NMW floor of regulated income, even when supplemented

by in-work benefits, is no guarantee against in-work poverty. This has been made clear by several

reports of our Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission in 2013 which indicated a steady

growth in the scale of in-work poverty in the UK - despite the existence of a NMW system and

income transfers through the Working Tax Credit system.

Nationalism in the UK

Interestingly, in-work poverty has been an important issue in the lead-up to today’s Scottish

independence referendum, especially among disillusioned workers. Some of them seem to be

deserting Labour in large numbers in areas like Glasgow, and voting ‘Yes’ to independence.

Household poverty in parts of Scotland, including areas where traditional socialist heartlands like

Glasgow have been losing ground to the SNP, is rife, as successive reports have been showing.

At different times in the independence campaign leading up to today’s referendum vote the Scottish

National Party has promised better regulation, a better minimum wage, and better trade union

organisation and representation rights. Encouraged by the popularity they have enjoyed by

measures like the retention of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board system (despite fierce

opposition by the employers, NFU Scotland) they have also opposed Coalition policies that have

been hitting low paid workers hard, including cuts to tax credits and social security, and measures

like the UK’s bedroom tax which have been impacting on low income households. Very attractive

promises, despite being short on specifics - but will they deliver if they win today? Let’s see!!

English nationalism has been following a similar trajectory. Ahead of the UK’s General Election in

2015, England’s biggest nationalist party, the UK Independence Party, buoyed up by the SNP’s

successes, has said it will actively ‘target the blue-collar vote’. Besides the usual rhetoric around

curbing immigration and withdrawing from the EU, the promise is to take the low-paid out of

taxation and cut the taxes of those on higher rates of tax ‘dramatically’ (UKIP, 2014). Evidence that

the main parties have been losing ground on issues like these should serve as a warning to the

political class in London.

These may also, no doubt, have some resonance in the rest of Europe.



State Support & Schemes of Social Solidarity: The Social Wage/WWB

Variously described as the ‘social wage’, schemes of social solidarity, the welfare addition to the

wage-work bargain, or more accurately the wage-work-welfare bargain (WWB), there are generally

two key transactions at work in relation to the wage-work bargain.

First, there is the bilateral contract of employment, under which a contractual wage is paid. Second,

there is further transaction between the worker and the State operates, with a supplementary or

secondary payment being made. In some European countries support may not be delivered directly

in this way. Nevertheless, where schemes operate to support the worker and her/his family

indirectly, in it may still be appropriate to characterise the State’s support as in the nature of a

secondary ‘social wage’. Besides delivering a secondary, supplemental ‘wage’, and replacing income

when wages are not in payment or reduce, what other functions has this area of the social security

system been performing?

Schemes of Social Solidarity: The ‘Facilitating’ Role

Much may be said about this, but it is clear that some of the newer systems being developed in

Europe have been helpful to some groups - what I would call the facilitating role. At the inter-face of

employment law and social security law State support plays key roles including support for newer

forms of work, in response to newer work patterns, and also facilitating entry to the labour market

for key groups who would otherwise be marginalised and excluded from the mainstream.

While I have some concerns about process, and the way changes have been happening – particularly

given some of the more coercive aspects of schemes like the UK’s new Universal Credit - I like the

ideas behind schemes like France’s RSA. Rooted in notions of social solidarity, and recognising the

reality that the groups being assisted represent sizeable sections of society who would otherwise be

excluded from mainstream paid employment, they have a prominent place in the rich tapestry of

European social security.

The underlying sentiment is clear enough. It is saying to some of the sizeable and growing groups of

les exclus ‘we, the community, support you’ … we want to give you opportunities for employment,

progress, and improvement – opportunities you would not otherwise have if you were to be left to

the mercies of the market. This perception of an ‘active’ role for social security schemes accords

with the ideas of early commentators like the German labour law academic and commentator, Hugo

Sinzheimer (Sinzheimer, 1924; 1949). Sinzheimer himself provided valuable insights into the inter-

actions between social security and labour rights, and the role that systems can play in making a

reality of anti-discrimination and other basic rights.

Key Groups: Solidarity/Citizenship

There are a number of key groups for whom measures like the UK’s Working Tax Credit (and new

Universal Credit), and France’s RSA, are particularly important as they promote welfare-to-work,

retention, and a much better ‘wage’ and level of household income than would otherwise be the

case.



Groups include: single parents with care of children; younger workers needing assistance to enter

the labour market, and older ‘returners’; those with disabilities and special needs, helped by a mix of

anti-discrimination, equalities measures, and State support (welfare-to-work transitions and

retention); and those looking for flexible working – eg when balancing family and work, and

facilitating flexible work, maternity/paternity through State replacement income.

Let’s look at each these groups more closely, and what schemes have been providing – recognising

that without such active support for welfare-to-work transitions, and in-work support to deal with

retention issues (the so-called revolving door by which scheme beneficiaries enter work but then

quickly return to ‘welfare’).

Clearly Social Security schemes have a valuable ‘empowering’ role for these sizeable (and growing)

groups.

Support for Non-Union, Low-Paid Workers: the ‘Unorganised Worker’

The context in the UK and EU is that a significant number of workers are not in unions, and are not

covered by collective bargaining.

Indeed, research results in the most recent Workplace Employee Relations Study (WERS, 2013) have

shown a continuing decline in union density and membership. Inevitably, this has implications in the

longer term for the effectiveness of redistribution, equalities, and social security systems.

One of the various missions of social security and assistance programmes, particularly since the

onset of the crisis, is to fill the gaps being left in occupational benefits and provision as a

consequence of ‘exclusion’, and to provide support – a development illustrated in the case of France

RSA (Bourgeois and Tavan, 2009; Vlandas, 2013), but also in Ireland, the Family Income Supplement

(FIS/ENDA, 2014), in conjunction with other schemes - albeit with limitations for some groups: non-

’employees’ and short-term jobs (under 3 months).

Standards, Rights & the Wage-Work Bargain

Before concluding I wanted to something about standards and ‘rights’ - particularly in the context of

work-related social security, and the important role they can play in the way State schemes operate

when they provide replacement income when normal wages cease or are in suspense.

An important element in any discussion of the operation of the wage-work bargain, and State

support for it, is the role of standards and rights. Plainly, these were introduced for good reasons -

so adherence to them is an important part of the European project and Social Europe.

In terms of standards, I believe it is vital to start making a reality of ILO and other international

standards (Korda, 2013), as well as the distinct European jurisprudence that is in the ECHR, and EU

Charter of Rights. This includes the specific measures aimed at assisting groups that would otherwise

be vulnerable, or treated less favourably than other groups in the labour market - particularly if we

are to have a level playing field across the continent. I have in mind key measures introduced at EU

Law level, but which depend on implementation at State level. ‘Equal treatment’ provisions in

measures like Dir 2004/38 (free movement) illustrate the point, and I will come back to it.



We should also be concerned about new developments that can impact negatively on process in the

determination of rights and entitlements relating to the wage-work bargain, whether these are

concerned with decisions between the parties, or by State agencies – for example in the

determination of social rights and entitlements.

In this regard I would like to add my support to some of the concerns expressed yesterday at the

start of this Congress by Carol Fawsitt, the Chair of the Irish Employment Lawyers Group (ELAI).

She emphasised the need for reform legislation, including the new Bill coming before the Irish Dail,

to maintain basic rights to fair resolution of disputes, coupled with effective appeal and

revision/review opportunities.

I agree whole-heartedly with this, and share the concerns of employment lawyers and advisers

about changes that impact on parties’ abilities to access justice and benefit from due process as a

Labour Law and Social Security Law norm.

This is surely embedded in key measures like ECHR article 6, and the right to a fair trial. What is the

point of regulation at the EU Law and Convention levels of Europe if, at the Member State level, such

essentials are removed without any comeback?

In both the Employment and social security spheres we face some major challenges in this regard. In

the UK, for example, as part of a creeping programme of labour market deregulation this has come

in the form of charging fees for the right of employees and former employees to go to an

employment tribunal. This has been a hugely controversial measure, which has succeeded in wiping

out an estimated 70-80 of claims in the UK’s Employment Tribunal system since it was introduced

last year.

Again, what’s the point of having employment rights, for example the right to contest withholding of

wages, or non-payment of an occupational benefit, if employees are going to be dissuaded from

asserting their rights in an independent judicial forum by such measures?

Similar considerations apply to social security adjudication, review, and appeal.

Protecting Rights

Does Europe protect core ‘economic’ rights sufficiently?

For present purposes, an ‘economic’ right encompasses matters like remuneration and occupational

benefits paid under the employment contract. Traditionally, the law does not intervene in private

bargains like the employment contract other than to enforce the terms of the bargain after it has

been agreed, and to otherwise ensure the parties to the transaction carry out their obligations. It

does little more.

However, as we have been seeing in the crisis years, the State’s role in providing support for

employment, including in-work benefits and other support for workers and families, has increased

significantly. With this, the need for effective and timely adjudication, appeals, and review processes

has grown as that ‘dependency’ has increased (Puttick, 2013). In the European context, the calls by

Carl Sunstein, the American philosopher, to introduce a raft of essentially economic rights (including

the ‘right to a remunerative job…to earn enough’) (Sunstein, 2006) have been responded to by the

State rather than at the private law level, and through the private employer. Ie the State

supplementing the product of the private bargain with social benefits: the ‘social wage’.



How susceptible to ‘protection’ are such benefits, and what does Social Europe say on the matter?

The answer to that can be seen in some of the very positive ways in which Free Movement –

arguably a cornerstone of the European project – has been accompanied by protective measures. In

the UK, for example, it has been gratifying in cases like MR v HM Revenue and Customs (2011) to see

Polish workers working in the UK being able to assert the right to in-work support from systems like

the Working Tax Credit ‘50 Plus’ element, aimed at helping older workers. This was assisted by

provisions on anti-discriminations on the grounds of nationality in Articles 18 and 45 of the Treaty on

the Functioning of the European Union, and ‘differential treatment’ in Regulation 1612/68 (EEC)

Article 7, requiring EU workers to enjoy the same ‘social and tax advantages as national workers’.

The ruling that such treatment was discriminatory, and could not readily be ‘justified’, was assisted

by important ECJ cases like De Cuyper (Case C0406/04; [2006] ECR I-6947).

Besides classic economic/social rights, and the kinds of newer rights to which I have alluded, should

they not extend to those kinds of rights on which effective collective bargaining depends? I have in

mind the right to take industrial action in support of pay and other claims – an essential factor in

protecting unions’ and their members’ rights to bargain effectively. As one participant expressed this

in earlier debates on labour rights, Europe’s failure to give full effect to such a core labour right has

consequences in terms of the efficacy and efficiency of collective bargaining as a redistributive

mechanism – it also reduces collective bargaining to a form of ‘collective begging’.

The Function of Rights

Among other ‘functions’, rights are important in this area of Labour and Social Security Law because

they provide a counter to unfettered, sometimes irrational, administrative discretion. Judicial

activism is important in social rights – a theme on which the Chair of this session, Prof Gerry Whyte

of Trinity College Dublin, has written extensively (Whyte, 2002). Unfortunately, though, ‘rights’ in

the hands of the judiciary sometimes have an alarming habit of cutting two ways, and in ways that

are not always predictable – we saw this with Irish interventions in the JIC cases recently, and in the

RMT case alluded to by an earlier speaker today, Prof Keith Ewing of KCL and the Institute of

Employment Rights.

There is also the kind of judicial inactivism which actually ends up stifling the operation of rights, and

thwarting the attainment of the legislator’s clear policy objectives. I have in mind the historic, almost

classical resistance of courts to expecting governmental bodies to deploy social welfare resources in

particular ways – even when this accords with the legislator’s intent. This is sometimes seen as

undesirable, especially if it can be characterised as somehow crossing the line between the judicial

and executive roles (and undermining the executive’s ability to deploy public resources without

unseemly intervention).

Measures like the ‘equal treatment’ provisions in Directive 2004/38 on free movement are good

examples of where such law is both appropriate and necessary, with related rights in sources like the

ECHR and EU Charter strengthening the substantive provisions concerned, as we have seen in social

rights cases before the CJEU this year. The expectation in the free movement scheme is that host

States should accord EU workers the same rights accorded to the host State’s nationals. That

includes support in the form of schemes designed to replace wages with State income (the ‘income

replacement’ function) – an essential aspect of the workings of free movement, particularly in a

context where visiting workers’ employment may be short-term, and periods of inactivity and non-

payment of contractual wages necessitate a degree of State support.



The area of retention of workers’ residence rights, and therefore access to such support, has proved

to be particularly difficult in practice - notwithstanding clear guidance from the EU Commission to

host States on the need to act carefully and fairly before withholding assistance. In 2008 an EU

Commission report described the transposition of Directive 2004/38 as ‘disappointing’ (EU

Commission, 2008) As a result, guidance on the implementation of this key part of the scheme

followed in 2009 (EU Commission, 2009); and this included points about the way restrictions on

access to social assistance should operate, including proportionality requirements (Puttick, 2011).

The EU and a Rejuvenated ‘Social Europe’

Whether at EU or national level, the kind of support I have been describing requires a robust, rights-

focused Social Europe to reinforce it – not least at a time when groups like EU migrant workers

increasingly need the protection of domestic courts and CJEU/ECtHR.

In the face of tendencies threatening the cohesion of free movement, the St Prix case (St Prix, 2014)

offers a valuable example of this, and of the role of ‘rights’ in reinforcing expectations of equal

treatment. It also highlighted, I believe, the complex issues around judicial lacuna-filling, especially in

the growth area of EU citizenship as a basis for developing rights. Before considering the case itself,

let’s look at why Social Europe, and key rights like ‘equal treatment’, as they are underpinned by

wider-ranging principles, matter so much.

EU workers exercising free movement rights make a big contribution in the EU labour market. Quite

rightly they have ‘equal treatment’ rights, and that includes social rights.

Care workers, health workers, and …. But how well protected are such rights in practice? We are

getting a mixed picture, with some decidedly positive results in recent test cases.

Teachers/Teaching Assistants

Jessy St Prix was a French national residing in the UK, and worked until she was pregnant.

Whilst she was on the pay-roll,there was no problem. It was generally easy to demonstrate ‘qualified

person’ status under Dir 2003/38 and the UK’s EEA (Immigration) Regulations 2006 as a ‘worker’

Later her situation became very much more problematic. Six months into her pregnancy she could

not get lighter, less demanding work. Unable to earn wages, and 11 weeks before her expected

week of confinement, she sought assistance from the UK social security system.

Here was the key question for the court. Did she retain a right of residence (RtR) and therefore a

right to support? This depended on whether she could retain ‘worker’ status.

Happily the CJEU gave us a very welcome answer (‘yes’).

To make reality of free movement rights, and linked equal treatment rights/obligations, it was

implicit in the scheme (despite no express reference to the position of pregnant workers) that they

should be treated as within this key area of social protection.

As importantly, the CJEU based its decision on the right reasons…In particular, it noted that whilst art

7(3) of the Directive did not expressly enable ‘worker’ status to be retained because of the physical

constraints of late pregnancy, and in the aftermath of childbirth, and pregnancy was not a form of

‘illness’ (which would enable temporary retention on the basis of incapacity), that did not mean EU

citizens could be ‘systematically deprived’ of worker status.



Above all, it made it clear that ‘classification as a worker under Art 45 TFEU, and the rights deriving

from such status, do not necessarily depend on the actual or continuing existence of an employment

relationship (citing Lair, 39/86, EU: C:1988: 322, paras 31, 36).

On that basis, the Directive’s list of groups able to retain worker status was not definitive; and it did

not set out ‘exhaustively’ all the circumstances in which a migrant worker who was no longer in an

employment relationship could continue to benefit from that status.

The fact that Ms St Prix was not actually ‘available’ for employment market in the host Member

State’s labour market did not mean that she had ceased to belong to that market, albeit with the

proviso that she returned to work or found another job ‘within a reasonable period after

confinement’ (the court cited, by analogy, Orfanopoulos and Oliveri, Cases C-482/01 and C-493/01,

para 50).

To determine what could be regarded as ‘reasonable’ required some judicial elaboration, and the

court was evidently content to look to Member States’ courts, and national practice, to take account

of the specific circumstances of particular cases, and the applicable national rules on the duration of

maternity leave (primarily in accordance with Art 8 of Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on

measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and

workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding).

Such lacuna-filling, and judicial innovation, is obviously a feature of the EU system, with considerable

scope given to the CJEU to act as a kind of default legislator when major schemes like free

movement threaten to unravel. This not well regarded in UK courts and lawyers, and Common Law

tradition where we prefer to see certainty, and not rely on judicial rule-making and lacuna-filling.

Nevertheless, in this important area of the operation of wages, the social wage, and social rights

more broadly, the court certainly came through with a strong and unambiguous judgment.

A Postscript to St Prix …

As a postscript to this important case, I would only add this comment.

Despite a very positive result, there are some residual concerns in the aftermath of the CJEU

judgment – not least on the wider question of why the UK and other EU States still seems able to

systematically deprive EU workers of equal treatment to its own nationals, and in a range of contexts

– for example in the case of older, retired workers residing in other EU countries than their own.

Such workers may well have spent a large proportion of their life in employment in their country of

origin, or other countries of the EU. Nevertheless, they can find themselves barred out of schemes of

assistance and non-contributory retirement benefits.

This was the position, for example, of former workers like Galina Patmalniece. Having been treated

as economically inactive, and therefore not ‘economically integrated’ in the host community, she

was unable to show she had a ‘right to reside’ – the gateway to a range of important social rights.

She could therefore be treated as outside the scope of social protection (Patmalniece, 2011).



Conclusions

Clearly Europe is still in recovery mode, and the crisis is by no means over.

Much repair work is needed, and changes to improve our ‘floor of social protection’ are overdue.

Among other things, funding of State schemes remains a difficult and contentious issue.

Ideally, at the heart of the renewal process will be measures to strengthen distributive mechanisms

(collective bargaining regulatory systems, etc) if the floor is to be secure, and if we are to see a

renewed, strong, and rights-based Social Europe.

Thank you for your kind attention!

References & Publications

Aristotle (337 BC) Nichomachean Ethtics (Penguin Classics, 2004: Trans JAK Thompson)

Aumayr-Pintar, C et al/Eurofound (2014) Pay in Europe in the 21st Century, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

Bachelet Report (2011) Social Protection Floor for a Fair and Inclusive Globalisation: Report of the Advisory Group Chaired by Michelle Bachelet, International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the WHO, Geneva: ILO, 2011

Bain, G (2013) ‘Minimum wage risks becoming going rate for millions, low pay pioneer warns’, The Guardian 5 July 2013

Banyuls, J and Reccio, A (2012) ‘Spain: The Nightmare of Neoliberalism’ in Lehndorff, S (ed) A Triumph of Failed Ideas: European Models of Capitalism in the Crisis, Brussels, ETUI

Barnard, C (2012) ‘The Financial Crisis and the Euro Plus Pact: A Labour Lawyer's Perspective’ Industrial Law Journal 41(1), 98-114

Barr, N (2012) The Economics of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 5th ed

Baylos, A & Trillo, F (2013) ‘Social Dimensions of the EU and the Situation of Labour Law in the Member States: An Evaluation of the Spanish Experience’, Medel Seminar Paper, Düsseldorf, 25th and 26th January 2013: Revista de Evaluacion de Programas y Politicas Públicas (Journal of Public Programmes and Policy Evaluation), Num.1 (2013) 54-71

Beland, D and Hansen, R (2000) ‘Reforming the French Welfare State: Solidarity, Social Exclusion and the Three Crises of Citizenship’, West European Politics, Vol 23 (1) pp.47-64 http://www.danielbeland.org/pubs/WEPBelandHansen2000.pdf

Bonnet, F, Saget, C, Weber, A (2012) Social Protection and Minimum Wages Responses to the 2008 Financial and Economic Crisis: Findings from the ILO/World Bank Inventory, Geneva: ILO, 2012

Bourgeois, C & Tavan, C (2009) The Revenu de Solidarite Active or Earned Income Supplement: Its Design and Expected Outcomes, Paris: Trésor-Economics No. 61, July 2009: Treasury and Economic Policy Directorate, République Française

Channel 4 Dispatches (2014) ‘Supermarkets: The Real Price of Cheap Food: Winners and Losers in the Supermarket Supply Chain’, UK’s Channel 4 TV, 4 Aug 2014:



http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/videos/all/supermarkets-the-real-price-of-cheap-food (accessed 13 Aug 2014)

CPAG (2012) ‘Local Figures for Children and Families Losing Working Tax Credit in April’, Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), 16 February 2012

Doherty, M (2013) ‘When You Ain’t Got Nothin’ You Got Nothin’ to Lose…. Union Recognition Laws, Voluntarism and the Anglo Model’, Industrial Law Journal 42 (4): 369-397

DEFRA (2012) Abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, Impact Assessment (IA): London: Department for Food, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs, Defra1462 (Final), 19 December 2012

DSS (1998) New Ambitions for Our Country: A New Contract for Welfare, London: Department of Social Security, Cm 3908

DWP (2010) 21st Century Welfare, London: Department of Work and Pensions, Cm 7913

Ernst & Young (2014) Bad news for workers should be good news for a continued low-inflation expansion,

London: Ernst and Young/Item Club August 2014

Esping-Andersen, G (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity

Esping-Andersen, G, Hemerijck, A, Myles, J (2003) Why We Need a New Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Eurofound (2014), Pay in Europe in the 21st Century, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

Eurostat/EU-SILC The European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC): http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc (accessed 13 Aug 2014)

Esping-Andersen, G and Regini, M (2007) Why Deregulate Labour Markets? Oxford: Oxford University Press

ETUC (2012) ‘Le Cri d’Alarme des Syndicats Européens sur La Crise Economique’, 16 June 2012

ETUC (2013) ‘ETUC Position on the Social Dimension of the European Union Brussels’: European Trade Union Confederation, 23rd April 2013

EU Commission (2008) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the Right of Citizens of the Union and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Member States', Brussels COM (2008) 840 Final

EU Commission (2009) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Guidance for Better Transposition and Application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the Right of Citizens of the Union and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Member States', Brussels 2.7.09 COM (2009) 313 Final

IDS (2014) ‘Average Earnings Figures Show Anaemic Growth’, Income Data Services, July 2014

IER (2013) Reconstruction after the Crisis: A Manifesto for Collective Bargaining (Hendy, J and Ewing, K), Liverpool: Institute of Employment Rights



IFS (2013) ‘Workers Kept their Jobs but One Third Faced Nominal Wage Freezes or Cuts’, London: Institute of Fiscal Studies

ILO (2012/13) Global Wage Report 2012-13 Wages & Equitable Growth, Geneva: Dec 2012

ILO (2014) World Social Protection Report 2014-15, Geneva: International Labour Organisation

Islam, F (2013) ‘Wonga: big profits as well as high interest rates: Exploiting the low-paid, financially vulnerable? A buffer for cash-short young, low-paid workers..?’ Channel 4, 3 September 2013 Kelly, L (2014) ‘UK Housing Benefit Bill will Soar to £25bn by 2017’, The Guardian, 24 April 2014 Kerr, A (2013) The Trade Union and Industrial Relations Acts (Ireland), Dublin: Thomson Round Hall, 4th Ed Kerr, A & Whyte, G (2003) Trade Union Law in Ireland, London & Dublin: Butterworths Korda, M (2013) The Role of International Social Security Standards: An In-Depth Study through the Case of Greece (Vol 32, Social Europe Series), Cambridge: Intersentia Koukiadi, A and Kretsos, L (2012) ‘Opening Pandora’s Box: The Sovereign Debt Crisis and Labour Market Regulation in Greece’, Industrial Law Journal, 41(3): 276-304 Kronman, A (1980) ‘Contract Law and Distributive Justice’ 89 Yale LJ 472 Krugman, P (2009): ‘Too Little Stimulus in Stimulus Plan’, Speech at the University of Pennsylvania, 19 February 2009 Mai, Verena Maria (2013) The Capacity of Welfare Regimes to Absorb Macro-economic Shocks: National Differences in the Development of Unemployment, Poverty and the Distribution of Income in the Aftermath of the Financial Crisis 2008 (Sweden, Austria, Spain), Hamburg: Anchor Academic Publishing Marshall, T. H (1949) Citizenship and Social Class & Other Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Meyer, H (2014) ‘How the German Minimum Wage and Investment Could Help the Eurozone’, Social Europe Journal, 30 January 2014 Mikol, Vicard, Bonnefoy, Mirouse (2008), La Prime pour l'Emploi, Un Dispositif Bien Connu dans Son Principe, Peu dans ses Modalités (The Working Tax Credit: A Mechanism that is Well Known in Principle, but not in Practice), Paris: Dossier Solidarité Santé, No. 5, 2008 Mill, J.S (1920) Principles of Political Economy, London: Longman, Green & Co (Ed W. Ashley) MISSOC (2014) EU Commission Mutual Information System on Social Protection and Comparative Tables on Social Protection

NFU Scotland (2013) ‘Agricultural Wage Proposals Reflect Difficult Year’, 23 May 2013



O’Sullivan, M and Wallace, J (2011) ‘Ireland’s JLC System: Minimum Labour Standards in a Social

Partnership System - The Persistence of the Irish Variant of Wages Councils’, Limerick: University of

Limerick http://ulir.ul.ie/bitstream/handle/10344/2573/O'Sullivan,M%20(2).pdf?sequence=2

Panyerre, Y (2014) ‘Social Reforms to Cope with the Financial Crisis in France’, Vol 35-3 Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal 299-310

Piketty, T (2014) Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Harvard University Press, 2014

Piketty, T, Rosanvallon, P, et al (2014) ‘Our Manifesto for Europe: European Union Institutions No Longer Work. A Radical Financial and Democratic Settlement is Needed’, The Guardian 2nd May 2014

Pissarides, P (2014) Social Europe in a Climate of Austerity, Eurofound Conference, Athens 23rd June 2014, Social Europe Journal (June 2014)

Puttick, K (1998) ‘Welfare as Wages: Benefits, Low Pay and the Flexible Labour Market’, Industrial Law Journal 27(2), 162-168

Puttick, K (2006a) Welfare Benefits and Tax Credits, XPL Publishing, 9th edn

Puttick, K (2006b) ‘Welcoming the New Arrivals? The Reception, Integration and Employment of A8, Bulgarian, Romanian Migrants’, Journal of Immigration Asylum & Nationality (2006) Vol. 20, No. 4 238-254

Puttick, K (2011) ‘Paying their Way? Contesting ‘Residence’, Self-sufficiency and Economic Inactivity Barriers to EEA Nationals’ Benefits: Proportionality and Discrimination’, Journal of Immigration, Asylum & Nationality Law 25(3), 280–292

Puttick, K (2012a), ‘21st Century Welfare and the Wage-Work-Welfare Bargain’, Industrial Law Journal, 41 (1) 122-131

Puttick, K (2012b) ‘21st Century Welfare and Universal Credit: Reconstructing the Wage-Work-Welfare Bargain’, Industrial Law Journal, 41 (2) 236-249

Puttick, K (2013) ‘Social Security and Community Care Law’ in Burton, M Civil Appeals, London: Sweet & Maxwell

Resolution Foundation (2013a) Low Pay Britain, London: Resolution Foundation

Resolution Foundation (2013b) Fifteen Years Later: A Discussion Paper on the Future of the UK National Minimum Wage and Low Pay Commission (James Plunkett and Alex Hurrell), London: Resolution Foundation

Sahlins, M (2003) Stone Age Economics, London: Routledge

Sinzheimer, H (1927) ‘Das Wesen des Arbeitsrechts’ in H. Sinzheimer (ed) Arbeitsrecht und Rechtssoziologie’, Vol 1 (Bund Verlag, 1976; and Frankfurt aM: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1976)

Social Europe (2013) Social Europe: Current Challenges and the Way Forward: Annual Report of the Social Protection Committee (European Union Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity - PROGRESS 2007-2013), Brussels: EU Commission Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, February 2013

http://ulir.ul.ie/bitstream/handle/10344/2573/O'Sullivan,M%20(2).pdf?sequence=2



Social Mobility & Child Poverty Commission (2013) State of the Nation 2013: Social Mobility and Child Poverty in Great Britain, London: SM & CPC, 2013

Steiner, S and Wakolbinger, F (2010), ‘Wage Subsidies, Work Incentives and the Reform of the Austrian Welfare System’, Free University of Berlin, School of Business & Economics, Discussion Paper (2010/19)

Sunstein, C (2006) The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever, New York: Basic Books/Perseus

TUC (2013a) ‘Bring Back Wages Councils to Tackle Living Standards Crisis’ (General Secretary, Frances O’Grady at the TUC conference Strong Unions: Turning the Tide): TUC Press Release 8th March 2013)

TUC (2013b) ‘TUC Welcomes Move to Expose Minimum Wage Cheats’ (General Secretary, Frances O’Grady), TUC Press Release 23rd August 2013)

UKIP (2014) ‘For a Britain Independent, Free and Fair’: United Kingdom Independence Party:

www.ukip.org

Vlandas, T (2013) ‘The Politics of In-Work Benefits: The Case of the ‘Active Income of Solidarity’ in

France’, French Politics 11, 117–142

Wanrooy, B et al (2013) The Workplace Employment Relations Study: First Findings, London:

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, May 2013 (and follow-up study Workplaces in the

Shadow of Recession: Findings from the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study, Dec 2013)

Welz, C (2008) The European Social Dialogue Under Articles 138 and 139 of the EC Treaty: Actors,

Processes, Outcomes, Alphen: Kluwer Law International

Whyte, G (2002) Social Inclusion and the Legal System: Public Interest Law in Ireland Dublin, Institute of Public Administration

Weiss, M (2013) ‘Reinventing Labour Law?’ in Davidov, G & Langille, B The Idea of Labour Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013

WERS (2013) Wanrooy, van, B et al The Workplace Employment Relations Study: First Findings, London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, May 2013; and the follow-up study Workplaces in the Shadow of Recession: Findings from the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study (Dec 2013)

Social Europe (2013) Social Europe: Current Challenges and the Way Forward Annual Report of the Social Protection Committee (European Union Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity - PROGRESS 2007-2013), Brussels: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, February 2013

Legislation, Conventions, etc

Charter (2010) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 30.3.2010, OJ EU, C83/389 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/index_en.htm (accessed 13 Aug 2014)

What is the EU Doing to Implement the Charter? http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/implementation/index_en.htm (accessed 13 Aug 2014)



Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm (accessed 13 Aug 2014)

Opinion of the Court on Draft Protocol No. 15 to the European Convention on Human Rights Adopted on 6 February 2013 (Margin of Appreciation, Subsidiarity, etc)

Directive 2004/38 (on the right of the citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States), OJ L158 77, 30.4.2004

ILO (1952) Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), Geneva: International Labour Organisation, 10 June 2008

ILO (2008) Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (including Institutionalization of ‘Decent Work’), Geneva: International Labour Organisation, 10 June 2008

ILO (2012) Recommendation concerning National Floors of Social Protection 2012 (No. 202), Geneva: International Labour Organisation, 10 June 2008

UN Migrants’ Rights Convention (1990) UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families: Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 45/158, 18 December 1990

Cases

Agricultural Sector Bill, UKSC (2014) Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill: Reference by the Attorney General for England and Wales [2014] UKSC 43 (UK Supreme Court)

De Cuyper (C-406/04) [2006] ECR I-6947

Docherty & Jones (2013) Docherty and Jones v SW Global Resourcing Ltd [2013] CSIH 72: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2013/2013CSIH72.html (accessed 13 Aug 2014)

John Grace (2011) John Grace Fried Chicken v The Labour Court [2011] 3 IR 211

McGowan & Others (2013) McGowan & Others v Labour Court Ireland & Others [2013] IESC 21 (Supreme Court, Ireland)

MR v HM Revenue and Customs [2011] UKUT 40 (AAC)

Orfanopoulos & Others (C-482/01) and Oliveri (C-493/01) v Land Baden-Württemberg

Patmalniece (2011) Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2009] EWCA Civ 621 (Court of Appeal; [2011] UKSC 11 (Supreme Court)

St Prix (2014) Jessy St Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Case C-507/12, 19th June 2014, Court of Justice of the European Union (on referral from the UK Supreme Court [2013] 1 All ER 752)

States’ Social Security & Support for the Wage-Work ...eprints.staffs.ac.uk › 1956 › 1 ›...

Documents

Transcript of States’ Social Security & Support for the Wage-Work ...eprints.staffs.ac.uk › 1956 › 1 ›...